campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Terrorism
Category:International_affairs Terrorism (General) Terrorism is nor bad or good - it is an instrument of power, but it can in no way destroy our way of life in the same way that overreaching, liberty-infringing state action to stop terrorist acts certainly can. 85.216.71.229 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. Think of the respect the USA would have received from the rest of the world if we'd picked ourselves up, brushed ourselves off, and said, "No open society can guarantee perfect security. We have learned some lessons from this attack, but we will never give up the freedoms that make us great, even if it means we are attacked again. Instead, we will try our best to make sure that everyone in the world has the opportunity to share in our prosperity." Or something like that. --Kg6cvv 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Interesting thought but are you saying we should've just ignored the 9/11 attacks? Such talk is irational in today's society. People wanted revenge after those attacks, even someone like me who doesn't approve of revenge recognizes that. This country has a bad history of going to war with little or no provocation so it's overly idealistic to think that America would've not been angered by these acts. Terrorism can not be crushed with force but ignoring it doesn't works On this subject both irational fear of our government and irational fear of terrorists can be dangerous. --Pacotheparrot 06:25, 6 July 2006 :::No, I'm saying we should have taken our time and learned from them instead of jerking our knees and overreacting to the point that we only made the problems worse and reduced the respect of the rest of the world for the USA. IMHO legislators and their staffers, each of whom have incentives only to "do something" and not to actually be effective, and who have a huge stake in politics, were the last people who should have been recommending solutions to the problem. I believe the best solution to problems like this is to take a clue from the jury system and appoint a civil grand jury with a narrow, well-defined mission that can call witnesses and make recommendations, and who have no stake whatsoever in the political process. Their having no stake in the political process is what makes a civil grand jury different from "appointing a commission to study the problem."--Kg6cvv 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::Terrorism is the tool of the few to coerce the many. The strategy is centered around the response to attacks rather than the attack itself. While I would agree that not responding at all to the threat of terrorism is impractical, the point that is debatable is the response itself. If hijacking aircraft, bombing infrastructure, sneaking weapons through our ports, and crossing the border undetected were all made to be mostly impossible propositions then the threat of terrorism would have been addressed. Merely chasing ghosts around the globe would, at best, address this particular thread of terrorism and not the actual ability to conduct such attacks. I personally think we should be doing both but more defense than chasing. --Xageroth 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::"This country has a bad history of going to war with little or no provocation" I don't quiet understand that statment? Do you mean to say that what happened on 9-11 was little or no provocation? By that standard Pearl Harbor would need to be considerd little or no provocation and I don't think any reasonable thinking person would think that. What happened on 9-11 was an act of war. War was officially declaired on the USA by these terrorist several years before so by any defination it was an act of war. We are still at war today and I just don't understand how this could be considered "little or no provocation". When war is declared against a country and then that country is attacked it is in a state of war. --Seashell 18:43, 6 July 2006 ::::In the interest of keeping the debate within the bounds of non-charged rational discourse, you might want to check the definition of "Declaring War" here: Wikipedia article. Exagerations have a tendency to escalate on both sides of an issue so it's better to nip it in the bud early. It's clear that the terrorists don't represent a "nation" so by definition cannot declare war or have war declared upon them. They are merely criminals who have killed more than most. Be careful not to legitimize their jihad by mischaracterizing and glorifying the conflict. This is a law enforcement action against antisocial criminals and inflating it in any way beyond that has only got the U.S. in trouble. --TheChin! 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I salute you for keeping the discussion civil, but I am forced to disagree with your premise. When a government, or those that embody it, commit criminal acts collectively and on government time, we are forced to deal with that government as a sovreign nation, not as individual criminals. This is clearly the case in places such as Afghanistan and Somalia. Compaqdrew 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :::What I meant by that statement was, note the word history here, in our past there have been several wars in which we've declared war with little or no ligitimate provocation. My examples would be the Spanish-American war and the Mexican-American war. But more importantly I think you're missing the point. My point was in response to the previous author who mentioned that it was the American people's reaction that the terrorists had hoped to invoke. I was merely stating that to expect people to act thoughtfully and correct after such attacks is too idealistic. Iraq was totally a revenge based war to the American people. It was only once the war had started that we realized that we had foolishly declared war on a country almost completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks. I don't think an "act of war" can be committed by a few men who aren't associated with any country. If you've noticed Al Qaeda is not a nation or associated with any nation. In conclusion, I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make... Not trying to be mean just trying to explain my response. :What is a terrorist? Is it "the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands."? Maybe so, but if so, then the invasion of Iraq is classed as terrorism. It forced the community to act in a certain way - whether that was to their benefit is another matter. It forced. :* Is it just the killing of civilians? Again, if so then most governments are terrorists. :* Is it just that *targeting* of civilians? Maybe, but if so then two out of the four airplanes on 9/11 do not count as terrorists, since they were targeting non-civilian targets. Does the fact that they knowingly killed civilians mean that they are? Well, I've got news - governments call that "collateral damage" when they do it, and they would admit that they do. :* So what separates terrorists from governments? The *unlawful* use or threatened use of force is terrorism. The ONLY difference between these two camps is the law. :* Does this make governments "terrorists"? No. Nothing so simple. :* Instead it belies a fundamental truth - that the use of the word is for propaganda purposes ONLY. It merely serves to provide a way for governments to define an enemy, which is done strictly for political purposes. Your mere use of the word helps them with this cause. :* Every time you use the word terrorist, you are helping them. Stop. 85.216.71.229 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Terrorism is not always used as a propaganda tool. When a small group of people take hostages and demand prisoners in some jail be released, or they will kill their hostages, that is not propaganda. Anphanax 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::You are correct about the usage of a terrorist act, but the grandparent was referring to the word itself.--62.255.32.14 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::::85.216.71.229 said, "It merely serves to provide a way for governments to define an enemy, which is done strictly for political purposes." I disagree, as the word can be used by every-day citizens to describe what I described previously. It doesn't exist "merely" for government usage only. I understand the cynicism that it's all "politics", I just don't buy into it. Sure, some usage of the word Terrorist is political, but not all. --Anphanax 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::::Of course it is used by every-day citizens. That is the point - therein lies the power of the word. It is *defined* by government, however. That is obvious once you look at it, since governments *commit acts of violence that are equivalent*, but they are not labelled terrorism. It is implicit in our culture that the government *can* define a terrorist act, which is why the word is so dangerous - it gives the government far too much power. Clausewitz: War is continuation of politics by other means. The islamic terrorists have a political agenda and they take other, violent means to achieve those goals and thus it is right to speak of a war, even though the opponent does not dress in uniforms and claim to be a government. As I see it, the blurry line between terrorists and armies in war comes from the fact that soldiers wear uniforms, which clearly denote them as soldiers and that they do not explicitly target civilian population (which does not mean that civilian casualties do not happen). --68.101.185.95 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I am going to have to disagree with your statement "War is a continuation of politics by other means" pretty strongly. While our friends in broadcast media enjoy viewing the war within the political prism (when was the last time there was a war story that didn't mention Bush's poll numbers?) I doubt either the troops on the ground or the majority of America look at it as "a continuation of politics." I certainly don't. Bush certainly doesn't. And you can love him or hate him, but he's been extremely clear regarding his feelings on the war, and I've never heard him mention politics. The only people that I've heard trying to politicise the war would be broadcast media and the political Left. Compaqdrew 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC) What Clausewitz meant by the quote above was not that all wars were political, but that any war that ignores the political component is doomed to failure. Thus, "War is a continuation of politics by other means" is as much a prescription as a description. To the extent we ignore the political dimension of war, and engage in war as an end unto itself, we have failed before we began. It is by this measure that al-Zarqawi's terror war on Iraqi civilians (or if you prefer, the subset of Iraqi civilians that he considered apostates) failed so miserably. A war that targets civilians indiscriminately must subdue that population, or else it has failed in its political objective. Yet the Iraqi people work, vote, educate their children, watch satellite TV, and engage in all the daily activities of a free people. It is this inability to control the spirit of the Iraqi people that leads those who favor the war to believe that we are winning. For if the will of the Iraqi people will not be broken by deadly violence on a daily basis, the terrorists in Iraq must inevitably be defeated, for they have developed no other plan for victory. Terrorism Overemphasized Terrorism is by no means a leading cause of death in the U.S., however it recieves a disproportionate level of attention and funding. Maybe some cited statistics would be useful here on how terrorism is significantly less likely to affect you when compared to other common occurrences such as automobile accidents. ---- When compared to other leading issues on Google Trends, such as higher education, it appears as if people in Washington DC are disproportionatly interested in terrorism, and news coverage is disproportionate in relation to actual interest. ---- You're 3.9212 times more likely to be murdered on your vacation to Mexico than die due to American troop actions, insurgency, or crime combined (iraq deaths,mexico murders), yet there's not a day that goes by that you don't hear about terrorism in Iraq. And how many news stories are there about murders in Mexico? ---- The difference between a car accident and terrorism, for instance, is that people feel they have some control. A car accident couldn't happen to them because they're a good driver. Terrorism is about controlling fear. ---- Of course, even good drivers get into accidents. The level of comfort you feel in a car is largely due to ignoring the dangers you are facing every second on the road. If we felt the same way about driving as we felt about terrorism, we'd have fifteen feet tall concrete barriers between lanes and have checkpoints every five miles to make sure you have correct documentation. The fear of terrorism is irrational, fueled by shocking events broadcast in full-color TV. Furthermore, fear is a great thing--it means you're still free. Terrorism is as old as anything else on this planet. Yet it is used to create fear (not only by those who commit it), and make people accept certain changes in their system, such as limiting your civil rights, or exceeding judicial powers. ---- Hurricans are also not the lead cause of death in US, but they got more attention than let's say car accidents. Also violent crimes get more attention than car accidents, all this is within the normal media coverage choices, it also depends on the demand from the public. There's no need to judge media when it is the public who wants to get info about the terrorism. -- Blackdog 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :According to Google Trends, the only city in which people care more about terrorism than hurricanes is Washington, DC. This may be because Washington itself is at high risk of an attack, or maybe because fear politics work so well for the people in charge there. --AndreyF 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Terrorism as a symptom Whenever I see or hear the words "Weapons of Mass Destruction", I remember Dennis Kucinich's statement that Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction, Ignorance is a weapon of mass destruction, and Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. I hear on the news about this terrorist attack or that car bomb, and I recognize them for what they are, which is a symptom of a disease. People use terrorism as a Weapon of Mass Desparation'', because every other way they have to demand a redress of grievences has been cut off. When I was diagnosed with cancer in 2003, I had been experiencing small pains throughout my body that I couldn't find a cause for. A rash here, pain in my joints, being extremely tired all the time, etc. Then I was diagnosed, and started chemo and radiation therapy. Now I'm fine, and I'm focused on keeping myself healthy and active, and paying attention to strange pains and annoyances. Because I know now that they are symptoms of something larger, something that could have killed me. When we hear about hunger, or a shortage of water, or political unrest, or terrorist attacks, what we are hearing about is the small pains in the human race that signal that something is wrong. We need to find the true cause, and fight it with everything we have. Fighting terrorism with armies and bombs is like treating a liver spot with acne cream. Chadlupkes 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I have to agree with terrorism as a symptom rather than a cause. I also agree that because people do not have the basics - food, shelter, water and clothing - this causes a lot of social stress. In the same way that sex is popular to do, and not to talk about, I think that ending poverty is popular to talk about and not to do. Charity - which is not just giving money to church - has never really been popular or cool, and I don't think it can be. What if the root cause of these problems was, say, greed? This might be too marxist for some people to swallow, but simply identifying the problem will not solve it. At the same time I think there needs to be a major theoretical groundwork laid so that people can understand these problems in a real context: as symptoms, rather than the cause themselves. But that understanding should push individuals towards actions, not philosophical debate. :As for the government and my country, I love the place. I / You / We have to realize that there are places in the world that you can't practice your own religion, you are not safe at night, businesses aren't run by "fair" practices and much more. But I do not use patriotism to rubber stamp everything my country does. I love my country too much to see it's errors continue. And this is where I think the left and the right (if these labels even mean anything) get it wrong. I believe that people don't fanatically attack others for no reason, and if my country's army is the hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Maybe I'm skipping around too much, but is foolish to wish that all the money spent on war could / will be spent on humanitarian aid - for their country or ours? I simultaneously realize how awesome and unrealistic this would be, and maybe my reality is based on the fact that I don't like the idea of other people dying. And I think that is the crux of the issue: killing is so much more than just shooting someone. You can kill someone by allowing terrible living conditions to exist, by forcing an economic situation that doesn't allow people to eat, by producing products that are unsafe... Regardless of religion, I think that people can come together around the idea that human life is sacred. Terrorist, who in another time or place would be soldiers, have such a warped reality that it is truly sad they can just end life on a whim, be it their's or other's. I think these people need help, and that definitly does not come in the shape of a bullet. --Bubaflub 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Terrorism Probably Does Not Exist At least not as we are lead to "know" it. There are no large terrorist organisations looking to do great harm in the U.S. Or, if there are, they are utterly incompetent and can be disregarded. Where does this logic come from? Here is the way the concept works: * There have been just many perfect opportunities in recent memory (katrina aftermath, for example) whereby a properly executed terrorist campaign could have devistating effects, even a very small one, like a handful of letter bombings in the right direction. * Considering that two barely educated men and a rifle could so completely terrorize the Washington DC area for weeks just a few years ago, clearly the "cost" of being a terrorist is as low the price of a hunting rifle, and box of ammo, and a beat up car... * And - most of all - who gains benefit from "terrorist" actions ? The terrorist or the country / state / organization that is barely legalized by media industries to put up massive actions against economical enimies ? Short past showed up that U.S. can do anything they like to friend or foe. 9/11 was perfect to prove this fact. The only real prize of last years worldwide terrorist actions goes to -> United States ! Putting this all together, we see a pattern, or a lack of one. Logically, this does not make sense. If it's cheap to pull off a terror campaign, if it requires essentially no resources whatsoever more than a couple of guys, if there are tons of great opportunities, and you aren't jumping at them, then you aren't a terrorist group with any ambition or competence. The end result is simply that 9/11 was a fluke at best. --Gnovos 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :This doesn't make any sense, there are always going to be people that will try to influence states that are more powerful than them by threatening, frightening and attacking unarmed civilians of those states. There are enough examples in history, I won't bother to list them. Besides, the term '''terrorism doesn't refer only to US and 9/11 events. US is not all the world, try to get rid of your geocentric views. -- Blackdog 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC) : This is liberal nonsense. According to the US Department of Defense, terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." Al Qaeda and other groups continue to threaten America and other targets in order to achieve their ideological objectives. Therefore, Gnovos' argument is flawed because terrorism isn't predicated alone on actual terrorist events; but the threat thereof. -- digistic 14:22, 6 July 2006 (CST) : Terrorism does exist. No question. But a terrorist network, like the government says, doesn't exist at all. There are a few guys who are so convinced of their idear, that they even kill a lot of people to realize this idear. If you have no fear to die, you could kill anyone you want - nobody could prevent this. In fact you are never realy safe. But do you want to give up your freedom for the fake safty that the politicans promise? If you spent your whole life in a prison build out of fears, your life wasn't a life. --217.226.97.19 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Than I propose the change the heading to say what it means, probably something like this: "There's no Al-Qaida network that threatens US" Which by the way is pretty obvious false. -- Blackdog 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :::You'd think, given what the administration says, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong, and you'd be a fool for trusting what they said. They have a vested interest in creating and pushing a bogeyman (worked in the cold war). In reality there is no "terrorist network". There are a set of terrorist groups that are barely linked by anything apart from a very weak shared ideology. That's not a network. ::::I guess it's how you define "is". What is a network? How many terrorists do you need to say there's a network of terrorists? -- Blackdog 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Does terrorism work? Terrorism works Terrorism exists exactly because it works and it is efficient. A terrorist act can change the course of actions of a state or group by using asymmetric means (the terrorists have less power than the part they want to influence). -- Blackdog 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) : 9/11 certainly did work, it made the USA attack Iraq. Let's see if Al-Qaida can make them attack Iran, too. Terrorism doesn't work The response to an act of terrorism determines its usefulness as an act. Historically, terrorism has only perpetuated violence and needless retaliations, instead of solving the original issue by which terrorism was contracted. See: World War I, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, War On Terror. External Links *Wikipedia entry for War by Proxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_by_proxy *Wikipedia entry for Asymetrical Warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymetric_warfare *Wikipedia entry for Freedom Fighters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fighters *Citizens Against Terror http://citizensagainstterror.net =Perspectives= (Share your feedback about this section's format/content on the discussion page!) As a way of starting a deeper conversation around Terrorism, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective should be formatted as follows: "I am _______, and I believe _______." EXAMPLE: "I am a student, and I believe we should focus on non-violent intervention." EXAMPLE: "I am a businessman, and I believe that we need to protect our financial assets with any means necessary." EXAMPLE: "I am a teacher, and I believe that educating our youth about other cultures and religions would decrease our tendency to judge." Let's keep this civil, thoughtful and friendly... and have fun! What's YOUR perspective? Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes *I'm a spiritual teacher in Southern California, and I believe that the way to peace involves finding a way to bring topics of our diverse spirituality into civil conversations, so that we can better understand each other.75.24.182.141 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: *I'm an engineer from England, and I believe that we should mourn the dead, clear up the damage, ask the perpetrators why they did it, and then be mindful of that in the future--81.129.17.110 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I'm a junior doctor from England, and I believe the 7th July 2005 attack on London seemed to do the opposite of its intent: it brought out the best in people and made people determined not to change. http://citizensagainstterror.net/149 Ashre 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I'm a student from Oklahoma, and I believe that all the hype about the government infringing on our rights in order to protect terrorism is a false dilemma. The will of the average, ordinary sheeple always overcomes the will of its government, if only at the next election. Discussion Please keep responses & comments in the Discussion area. Perspectives should only be formatted in the way described above.: "I am ____, I believe ____. Thanks! * Engineer from England, that might work if the terrorists were rational. There's no point in asking them why they did it. The terrorists are hellbent on establishing fundamentalist Muslim regimes throughout the region that restrict freedom and rights as John Locke has theorized as certain unalienable rights. :: * We can't give in to terrorism. Example: Do you have a house? Do you have a family? If yes, if you don't give me your house I will kill your family. That's how terrorism works. **No, that's how theft works. Terrorism usually doesn't involve stealing things except maybe guns. A terrorist approach would be more along the lines of killing random people in houses to prevent people from going in houses. Giving people an irrational fear of something or someone. I don't know, I wouldn't make a very good terrorist. :: * I'm a student from Oklahoma, and I believe that all the hype about the government infringing on our rights in order to protect terrorism is a false dilemma. The will of the average, ordinary sheeple always overcomes the will of its government, if only at the next election. Compaqdrew 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)